BharatTax.net
SearchITATHigh CourtsSupreme CourtPhrasesAI ResearchHistory

Filters

BharatTax.net

Free search engine for ITAT (Income Tax Appellate Tribunal) judgments across all 28 benches in India.

Quick Links

  • Search Judgments
  • Browse by Bench
  • Recent Judgments

About

BharatTax provides free access to Income Tax Appellate Tribunal orders for legal research and reference.

© 2026 BharatTax.net. All rights reserved.

35 results for “condonation of delay”+ Section 69Aclear

Sorted by relevance

Ahmedabad229Mumbai196Chennai166Hyderabad165Delhi136Kolkata126Jaipur119Pune112Bangalore111Lucknow89Surat86Visakhapatnam77Patna66Rajkot64Indore50Chandigarh47Amritsar35Raipur28Agra22Jabalpur18Cochin18Nagpur16Guwahati13Allahabad12Cuttack11Dehradun9Jodhpur7Panaji7Ranchi4Varanasi4SC2Rajasthan1

Key Topics

Section 69A46Section 25031Addition to Income31Section 14428Section 14826Condonation of Delay24Cash Deposit22Demonetization14Section 142(1)

PUNNU SYNTHETICS PRIVATE LIMITED,AMRITSAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD- 5 (4), AMRITSAR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee bearing ITA No

ITA 35/ASR/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar14 Jun 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjee

Section 115BSection 143(2)Section 144Section 144oSection 250(6)Section 250oSection 69A

section 69A can be invoked only when whole of such alleged money, bullion, jewellery, or valuable article has escaped assessment or remains unexplained. 10. That the appellant craves leave to add or amend the grounds of appeal before the appeal is heard and disposed off.” 3. The appeal was filed with a delay of 71 days. The assessee filed

Showing 1–20 of 35 · Page 1 of 2

12
Section 26312
Section 14711
Section 250(6)10

SHRI GHULAM NABI DAND ,SRINAGAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD, UDHAMPUR

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 88/ASR/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar16 Oct 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Sh. Manoj Kumar Aggarwal & Sh. Udayan Dasgupta

For Appellant: None (Written submission)
Section 147Section 250Section 69A

condone the delay of 180 Days, and dismiss this appeal of the appellant as barred by limitation. In view of the above discussion appeal is rendered as inadmissible.” 7. Now, the assessee is before the Tribunal on various grounds contained in the memorandum of appeal and one of the main grievance of the assessee is that he has not been

SHRI AMRIT PARKASH SEHGAL (HUF),JALANDHAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-2(1), JALANDHAR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 12/ASR/2020[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar24 Aug 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjee

For Appellant: Sh. Surinder Mahajan, CAFor Respondent: Sh. Amlendu Nath Misra, CIT DR
Section 143(3)Section 154Section 263

condoned the delay and admit the appeal to be heard on merits. 7. The assessee has filed return declaring an income of Rs. 25,08,770/- (APB pg. no. 4-7) and that the assessment was framed u/s 143(3) of the Act by making an addition of Rs.4,26,748/- (APB pg. no. 66-67). Subsequently, proceedings

SHRI TARA CHAND S/O SHRI GOURI SHANKER ,KATHUA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD, KATHUA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee bearing ITA No

ITA 15/ASR/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar30 May 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Sh. Udayan Das Gupta & Sh. Brajesh Kumar Singh

Section 144Section 148Section 250Section 69A

delay of 44 days is condoned. The appeal of assessee is taken for hearing. 3. The assessee has taken the following grounds: “1. That the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts dismissing the appeal, as assessee fail to file reply due to the reasons beyond his control. 2. That the Ld. CIT(A) has erred

IRFAN SHAH,SRINAGAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, SRINAGAR

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 381/ASR/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar21 Apr 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Sh. Udayan Dasgupta & Sh. Krinwant Sahay

For Appellant: Sh. Kundan Pandey for Sh. Vipul Arora C.A
Section 115BSection 144Section 250(6)Section 282Section 69A

condone the delay and admit the appeal for hearing on merits. 5. The grounds of appeal taken by the assessee in form 36 are as follows: “1. That the Worthy Commissioner of Income Tax ( Appeals) has, in view of the facts and circumstance of the case, grossly erred in confirming addition of Rs.3240500 on account of cash deposited during demonetization

BASHARAT SALEEM REHTOO,SRINAGAR vs. DCIT, ACIT CENT. CIRCLE , SRINAGAR

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 456/ASR/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar30 Jun 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Sh. Udayan Dasgupta & Sh. Brajesh Kumar Singh

Section 132ASection 143(3)Section 250Section 44ASection 69A

condone the delay and admit the appeal to be heard on merits. 4. The grounds of appeal taken by assessee in form 36 are as follows: “1. The CIT(A); erred in confirming the addition of Rs. 700000/- made by the AO u/s 69A on account of cash found/ seized during the requisition u/s 132A on 03.12.2018. The order passed

BHATIA MEDICOS,JALANDHAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-(3)1_, JALANDHAR

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 688/ASR/2024[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar21 Jul 2025AY 2017-2018

Bench: Sh. Manoj Kumar Aggarwal & Sh. Udayan Dasgupta

For Appellant: Sh. Sudhir Sehgal & Sh. Anil Miglani, Adv
Section 115BSection 142(1)Section 144Section 250Section 69A

condone the delay and admit the appeal for hearing on merits. 4. Grounds of appeal taken by the assessee in Form No. 36 are as follows: “1. That the order of the Ld. CIT(A) is against law and facts of the case on the file. 3 I.T.A. No. 688/Asr/2024 Assessment Year: 2017-18 2. That

RANJANA DEVI,MAUR MANDI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-1(1), BATHINDA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 410/ASR/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar20 Mar 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Dr. Dipak P. Ripote & Sh. Udayan Dasgupta(Physical Hearing) I.T.A. No. 410/Asr/2025 Assessment Year: 2017-18 Ranjana Devi, C/O Jishu Trading Vs. Ito, Ward-1(1), Co. Maur Mandi, Punjab. Bathinda. [Pan:-Alzpd4607L] (Appellant) (Respondent) None. Appellant By Respondent By Sh. Charan Dass, Sr. Dr.

Section 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 263Section 69A

condoned and the appeal admitted for hearing on merits. Substantial justice is more important than the procedural delay. 3. At the outset, during the course of hearing, none appeared on behalf of the assessee before the Bench. 4. The Assessee raised the following grounds of appeal: “1. That order passed u/s 250 of the Income

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(3), ABOHAR, INCOME TAX OFFICE, ABOHAR vs. RAJ KUMAR, ABOHAR

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is partly allowed

ITA 622/ASR/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar06 Apr 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: Sh. Manoj Kumar Aggarwal & Sh. Udayan Dasgupta

For Appellant: Sh. Rajendra Jain, Adv
Section 143(3)Section 250Section 68Section 69A

condone the delay and admit the appeal for hearing on merits. 4. Grounds of appeal taken by the revenue in Form No. 36 are as follows (which is not concise in terms of Rule – 8 of ITAT Rules ’63): “1. That on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in deleting the addition

LAKHVIR SINGH 810, VPO MALLAH TEHSIL JAGRAON DISTRICT LUDHIANA,PUNJAB vs. THE ASSESSMENT UNIT NFAC DELHI JAO INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-1, MOGA, PUNJAB

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 541/ASR/2024[2015-2016]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar29 May 2025AY 2015-2016

Bench: Sh. Manoj Kumar Aggarwal & Sh. Udayan Dasgupta

For Appellant: Sh. Sudhir Sehgal, AR
Section 142(1)Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 250Section 69A

69A of the Act. 8. The matter was carried in appeal before the ld. CIT(A) and the ld. CIT(A) NFAC dismissed the appeal on the ground that the appeal filed before the ld. first appellate authority was belated by 114 days and even though explanations for the delay was filed by the assessee, the same was not found

SANGAM TRADERS 60-GOLDEN AVENUE SAILI ROAD PATHANKOT,PATHANKOT vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 1 PATHANKOT SAILI ROAD PATHANKOT, PATHANKOT

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 706/ASR/2024[2020-2021]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar22 Jan 2026AY 2020-2021

Bench: Sh. Manoj Kumar Aggarwal & Sh. Udayan Dasgupta

For Appellant: Sh. P. N. Arora, Adv
Section 144Section 249(3)Section 250Section 68

69A, on account of unsecured loans, unexplained cash deposits and capital introduction, etc.). 4. The matter carried in appeal before the ld. first appellate authority has been dismissed by the ld. CIT(A) without admitting the appeal for adjudication on merits due to the reasons that the appeal has been belatedly filed by 209 (two hundred nine) days. The reasons

ABDUL MAJID WARD NO 6 MOHALLA RADIO STATSION HAVELI POONCH ,POONCH vs. ROMESH KUMAR SHARMA INCOME TAX OFFICER JAMMU, JAMMU

In the result, the appeal of the assessee bearing ITA No

ITA 374/ASR/2023[ASSESSMENT YEAR 2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar10 Feb 2025

Bench: Sh. Udayan Das Gupta & Sh. Krinwant Sahayi.T.A. No.374/Asr/2023 Assessment Year: 2017-18

Section 142(1)Section 144Section 250Section 44ASection 69A

section 69A of the IT Act, 1961. The AO did not I.T.A. No.374/Asr/2023 4 Assessment Year: 2017-18 appreciate that these deposits were out of the business sales/rcceipts and without placing any material on record the addition was made. Thus, the addition made is unjustified and uncalled for and the Ld. CIT(A) should not have confirmed the addition made

JASDEV SINGH,BATHINDA vs. ITO, WARD 1(1) , BTD, BATHINDA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 662/ASR/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar09 Feb 2026AY 2012-13

Bench: Sh. Manoj Kumar Aggarwal & Sh. Udayan Dasgupta(Physical Hearing) I.T.A. No. 662/Asr/2024 Assessment Year: 2012-13 Jasdev Singh, Vs. Ito, Ward 1(1), Gobindpura, Bathinda. Bathinda. [Pan:-Bzyps0363N] (Appellant) (Respondent) Sh. Rohit Kapoor, Adv & Sh. V.S. Appellant By Aggarwal, Itp Respondent By Sh. Charan Dass, Sr. Dr

Section 139Section 143(3)Section 148Section 151Section 250

condone the delay of I.T.A. No. 662/Asr/2024 3 Assessment Year: 2012-13 386 days, in absence of any communication from the office of the ld. CIT(A) in the e-mail id provided in Form 35. As such, we admit the appeal for hearing on merits. 3. The brief facts emerging from records are that the assessee has made cash

SHRI RAMESH CHANDER GUPTA,DODA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD, UDHAMPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee bearing ITA No

ITA 268/ASR/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar09 Nov 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjeei.T.A. No.268/Asr/2023 Assessment Year: 2017-18

Section 144Section 250Section 250oSection 28Section 44ASection 69A

delay for255 days is condoned. 3. The assessee has taken the following grounds: - “1. That the Ld. CIT(A) National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC) Delhi erred in passing the order Under section 250 of the Income tax Act, 1961 merely on assumptions, presumptions and apprehensions, without affording the adequate opportunity of being heard to the assessee. 2. That

SHRI SANJU GUPTA ,JAMMU vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-1(1), JAMMU

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 488/ASR/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar29 May 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Sh. Udayan Dasgupta & Sh. Krinwant Sahay

For Appellant: Sh. P. N. Arora, Adv
Section 144Section 250(6)Section 69A

condone the delay and admit the appeal for hearing on merits. 4. The grounds of appeal contained in form 36 are as follows: “1. That the Assessment Order dated 14/02/2022 passed by the Assessing Officer. National Faceless Assessment Centre, Delhi u/s 144 r.w.s. 147 of the Income 3 I.T.A. No.488/Asr/2024 Assessment Year: 2014-15 Tax Act, 1961 and the order

RAMEEZ RAJA BHAT,BUGAM BATAPORA CHADOORA BUDGAM vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-2 SRINAGAR, SILK FACTORY ROAD RAJBAGH SRINAGAR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 198/ASR/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar10 Nov 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Udayan Dasgupta

For Appellant: None (Written submission)
Section 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 144Section 250Section 270ASection 271ASection 69A

condone the delay and admit the appeal to be decided on merits. 5. The assessee has taken eight grounds of appeal and all the grounds are related to the addition sustained by the Ld. first appellate authority, on account of SBN deposits of Rs. 13.31 lakhs treated as unexplained u/s 69A plus an addition of Rs. 10.49 lakhs as business

M/S. GOLDEN TULIP HOSPITALITY PRIVATE LIMITED,SRINAGAR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE, SRINAGAR

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 264/ASR/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar10 Nov 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjee

For Appellant: Sh. Rohit Kapoor, CA &
Section 150Section 250(6)Section 69A

delay is condoned, and appeal is admitted for hearing on merits of the case. 6. Briefly the facts are that the assesee the assessee was engaged in construction activity. The AO stated that that the payments which are received through banking channel only relates to it and the payments made in cash by Sh. Abdul Majeed Sheikh to various parties

M/S. GOLDEN TULIP HOSPITALITY PRIVATE LIMITED ,SRINAGAR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE, SRINAGAR

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 265/ASR/2023[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar10 Nov 2023AY 2019-20

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjee

For Appellant: Sh. Rohit Kapoor, CA &
Section 150Section 250(6)Section 69A

delay is condoned, and appeal is admitted for hearing on merits of the case. 6. Briefly the facts are that the assesee the assessee was engaged in construction activity. The AO stated that that the payments which are received through banking channel only relates to it and the payments made in cash by Sh. Abdul Majeed Sheikh to various parties

SHRI BHUSAN KUMAR,JALANDHAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD- 3 (1) , JALANDHAR

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 298/ASR/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar21 May 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Sh. Manoj Kumar Aggarwal & Sh. Udayan Dasgupta

For Appellant: None
Section 143(3)Section 250(6)Section 271ASection 282Section 69A

condone the delay and admit the appeal to be heard on merits. 5. The grounds of appeal taken by the assessee in form 36 are as follows: “1. The worthy Income Tax Officer erred in completing the assessment by making an addition u/s 69A of Rs.993500/- against the facts and circumstances of the case. 3 I.T.A. No. 298/Asr/2024 Bhushan Kumar

SHRI RAJ KUMAR,ABOHAR vs. ASSISTANT COMISSIOER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-1, BATHINDA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical

ITA 150/ASR/2023[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar15 Sept 2023AY 2018-2019

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjee

For Appellant: Sh. Sudhir Sehgal, AR
Section 69A

delay of 4 days is condoned and appeal is admitted on merits. 3. At the outset, the ld. counsel for the assessee submitted that the ld. CIT(A) has passed the order ex-parte qua the assessee merely stating vide para 5.3 that the appellant has been offered sufficient and reasonable opportunity to present his case. However, the appellant